SL Updates Child Avatar Policy

[Beebo Brink]

If LL were starting from scratch, there are ways that SL could be structured to better protect valid ageplay. Separate avatar mesh for child avatars, which could only be worn in a general continent with no adult sexual behavior allowed. Violations would be much easier to define and enforce.

 

[AngelKitty]

I believe them that they won't do anything as simplistic as just requiring certain avatar heights or breast sizes but this is legitimately a hard thing to define on paper.

While I believe that is their current intent, I am concerned that they will be pressured to adhere to some minimum avatar height and breast size if for no other reason than that would be legally safer.

For many years, many area owners/operators and their managers have had policies that declare avatars that are "too short" or appear immature will be considered child avatars, therefore not allowed and would be ejected on sight. Also, an in-world acquaintance of mine was once auto-ejected by a script because it detected that her avatar had components of a disallowed brand. The fact that her avatar was more than tall enough and more than curvy enough to clearly be an adult woman was not a consideration. When she asked, the area owner replied that it was safer to simply ban that brand and several others that default to a child-like appearance.

This will be very unfortunate for those who currently wear petite female, effeminate male or "hobbit sized" avatars. Not sure how this might affect tiny avatars as they are smaller than even any infant avatar I've ever seen in SL so are potentially a special case.

(FYI, while taller than average, my avatar is otherwise borderline petite. I am considering increasing breast size to more clearly appear as adult.)

 

[AngelKitty]

• Bake layers and alphas can be a viable solution for existing skins. (Meaning sellers have some leeway but should update as soon as possible.)
• *BoM counts as baked layers, in my point of view.

The Linden suggestion points out that both textures and alphas can be used for modesty options. Not sure what you mean by 'permanent transparency' but there's no such thing as permanence in SL. Anything can and will be circumvented.

From the policy: "Child avatar content creators are required to add a modesty layer which is baked into child avatar skins or bodies, is not transparent "
While that could be interpreted as "not sheer", the language "not transparent" could be construed as excluding alpha layers to render those areas invisible.

Also, server side baked layers cannot ensure users would not see under the modesty layer. A missing inventory item can cause the compositor to produce a nude avatar, thus why the policy specifies it be part of the skin or body. Also, if client side baking is still supported, there would be ways to access the unbaked textures.

(Also, the policy requires that the creator ensure the modestly layer is not removable.)

 

[AngelKitty]

If you set G and M preferences ony in the viewer, it is impossible to tp to adult land IMHO. So you can't even land there by accident.
And for the rest it is like in RL: Don't accept anything from strangers.

And a bot will not know you are on a child avatar or not.

I would suggest only setting G in the viewer preferences as that is the only land where LL content policy expressly forbids nudity.

However, the "is present" clause could still be validly applied even to a G (general) area since nothing in SL actually prevents nudity in a G area. Aside from intentional "streaking" in a G area, accidental entries do happen, whether from a sim crossing, an accidental teleport or, for example, an ejection from an M area into an adjacent G area.

A possible work around for this would be for LL to add a system modesty layer that auto-activates when an avatar enters a G area. Unfortunately, this would not work for a non-BOM mesh avatar (unless the creator updates the avatar to include an auto-modesty layer or equivalent).

As for what a bot might know, a script can get a list of the body parts an avatar is wearing and either record it for later review or detect known brands of child/child-like avatars for reporting.

 

[AngelKitty]

Regardless of the rule about about the non-removable built-in modestly layer, I think the main takeaway is the part about 'no nude child avatars'.

If you're wearing your own opaque modesty layer, removable or not, what are LL actually going to ban you for? How will they even know it's non-removable?

And what exactly is another user even reporting you for? Wearing the wrong kind of underpants?

HOWEVER, it's probably also important to make sure your avatar doesn't have any accentuated contours in the areas you're covering up. That might get you in trouble.

From a screen picture, no one could tell if the modesty layer was removable. However, LL can examine your Current Outfit folder to determine what your avatar is currently wearing. (For that matter, there are scripts that can list what your avatar is wearing, though an ordinary user would not be able to determine if your underwear was covering your modesty layer or was the modesty layer without finding a picture or actually acquiring the skin and underwear/tattoo.)

As for reporting "wrong kind of underwear", I would expect that creators will make their modesty layers look exactly like the pictures provided by LL as the safest way to demonstrate compliance with the policy.

And since the policy requires child and child-like avatars only wear "proper child bodies or skins", yes, wearing the wrong kind of underwear will soon be a ban-able violation.

And the policy does also state that implying the presence of genitalia is also prohibited.

As for why the requirement to make the modesty layer part of the skin or body, that avoids the possibility of the child avatar being accidentally nude. If the layer is part of the skin/body texture, then a missing inventory item can't cause the compositor to produce a nude avatar.

 

[AngelKitty]

I know this is a joke, but also I wonder if there will be flurries looking for "loopholes."

In RL, there is the "fur suit loophole": The person in the suit is covered, so isn't nude. But the character the suit portrays could be "in the fur".

In SL, I have no doubt that "if it looks like a skin, it is a skin, no matter what layer it's worn on" will apply. So, a skin with a modesty layer on the skin layer and a "fur skin" on the clothing layers won't work unless the fur skin has its own modesty layer.

The question will be, how young does the avatar look? This will get very complicated given the intrinsic size differences between species (Is it an adult spotted cat or a child leopard?)

 

[AngelKitty]

Bullshit. Care to expiain how on G rated sims sexual activity can be expected?

On a G rated sim, that would not be expected. G rated sim policy expressly forbids nudity and sexual activity.

On an M rated sim, "non-explicit" and "mildly sexual" conduct is allowed under LL policies, so the "is expected" clause applies - even on land where the owner or tenant has published a policy forbidding nudity and sex.

So M rated sims are effectively off limits as well.

However, there is also the "is present" clause. Taken at face value, that applies to G rated sims, as well as M (and A) rated sims. Because that is what the policy states. The FAQ is not the policy. LL is not bound to what the FAQ says. LL would be entirely within their rights to decide the child avatar was in violation despite the exposure to nudity and/or sexual activity being accidental. (In RL, this would be similar to a person being charged with indecent exposure because the curtain on their bedroom window was not fully closed. (This really happened to a RL friend of mine.))

If this is not what LL intends, they need to amend the policy to allow accidental exposure as a defense.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The FAQ is not the policy. LL is not bound to what the FAQ says

Why do you think LL link to the FAQ in their official statement of the policy if they do not intend the FAQ to be read as an official clarification of how the policy is to be understood?

At the Governance Office Hours last week Keira Linden was talking about how clarifications and modifications to the policy would be announced in the FAQ in due course, after the policy modifications and the wording of the announcements had been decided and approved.

Why should we not view the FAQ as authoritative statements of LL's policy and how Governance will implement it?

 

[Beebo Brink]

AngelKitty - As a new person coming into this community, tap the brakes a little, please. Spamming this thread with half a dozen posts in a row is exhausting. Ease your way in; you'll get more traction that way.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Not sure how this might affect tiny avatars as they are smaller than even any infant avatar I've ever seen in SL so are potentially a special case.

What about Lomgren Smalls?

 

[Fionalein]

Apparently carrying around Zooby babies in adult sim is still OK, LOL found no single line disallowing those...

They will get reported anyways. And as we all know that governance duty is a penalty for those Lindens who turned up drunk at the last meeting ... anything involving something even remotely resembling kids will be a minefield. For example: I remember back when they still were in SL the owner of Nutbusterz even considered Dinkie avatars to be child avatars.

Meanwhile the place that started the rumors 2 years back finally shut down for good - nice parting gift they gave us there.

 

[Noodles]

Apparently carrying around Zooby babies in adult sim is still OK, LOL found no single line disallowing those...
.

That is actually a good point. Are they considering the presence of "underaged characters" fine when it's a prop instead of an avatar controlled by a person?

 

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

Note: I said "My takeaways from this [blog post]: " which is within the context of said blog post addressing how old content can be fairly un-broken.

 

[AngelKitty]

What about Lomgren Smalls?

By special case, I mean that the tiny avatars are so small that they seem to escape the assumption (of many people I've either met or read their opinions) that an avatar that is "too short" is a child.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

In SL, I have no doubt that "if it looks like a skin, it is a skin, no matter what layer it's worn on" will apply. So, a skin with a modesty layer on the skin layer and a "fur skin" on the clothing layers won't work unless the fur skin has its own modesty layer.

When my Luskwood Bunkies anthro ferret avatar puts on underpants he suddenly looks more naked than if he isn't wearing anything.

 

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

Mickey Mouse's main outfit doesn't include a shirt. Donald Duck doesn't wear pants. Minnie Mouse's dress exposes her underwear. Which one is the most messed up? =^-^=

 

[Free]

Mickey Mouse's main outfit doesn't include a shirt. Donald Duck doesn't wear pants. Minnie Mouse's dress exposes her underwear. Which one is the most messed up? =^-^=

Goofy is totally on the ball. That turtleneck with the vest, though...

 

[Noodles]

Goofy is totally on the ball. That turtleneck with the vest, though...

Goofy wears clothes and can talk but Pluto is a pet and is naked.

Both are dogs.

 

[Free]

Goofy wears clothes and can talk but Pluto is a pet and is naked.

Both are dogs.

Thanks. I didn't know that.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

When in doubt, wear pants isn’t the worst policy.